alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the annual report of Companhia De
Bebidas Das Americas - AmBev (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carlos Alves de Brito, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                                     /s/ Carlos Alves de Brito
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Carlos Alves de Brito
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     Dated: June 27, 2004













         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Acusphere, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Sherri C. Oberg, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, and John F. Thero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   | /s/ Sherri C. Oberg      |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Sherri C. Oberg          |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ John F.  Thero       |   |
|   | John F. Thero            |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | May 10, 2007             |

 

This certification isbeing submitted solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not tobe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, nor will thecertification be deemed incorporated by reference in to any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to theextent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

1

----
Michael Dominique DONSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 8, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
August 22, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONTREAL DAVAL BROWN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00389-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED to delete the 

specific amount of court costs imposed against appellant.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Jeffery Lamont CURRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-3211 & 17-3232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 20, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 635 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 635

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Internal 
 Revenue Service (IRS) must allow taxpayers the same lame excuses for 
   missing documentation that the IRS itself is currently proffering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2014

Mr. Stockman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Internal 
 Revenue Service (IRS) must allow taxpayers the same lame excuses for 
   missing documentation that the IRS itself is currently proffering.

The resolution may be cited as the ``Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Resolution''.
Whereas, the IRS claims that convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer 
        malfunction is sufficient justification not to produce specific, 
        critical documentation; and
Whereas, fairness and Due Process demand that the American taxpayer be granted 
        no less latitude than we afford the bureaucrats employed presently at 
        the IRS: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
unless and until the Internal Revenue Service produces all 
documentation demanded by subpoena or otherwise by the House of 
Representatives, or produces an excuse that passes the red face test,
    All taxpayers shall be given the benefit of the doubt when not 
producing critical documentation, so long as the taxpayer's excuse 
therefore falls into one of the following categories:
            (1) The dog ate my tax receipts
            (2) Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer 
        malfunction
            (3) Traded documents for five terrorists
            (4) Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
            (5) Left on table in Hillary's Book Room
            (6) Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy's car
            (7) Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
            (8) Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
            (9) Was short on toilet paper while camping
            (10) At this point, what difference does it make?
In any case, IRS can see the NSA for a good, high quality copy.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 19, 2006
 VALLEY BANCORP
   (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
 (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)000-50950
    
    88-0493760
 1300 South Jones Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
 (702) 821-4100
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act of (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act of (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition
   
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   VALLEY BANCORPBy

/s/
Barry L. HulinBarry L. HulinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): June 19, 2006
 Champion Enterprises, Inc.
   
 1-9751
    
    38-2743168(Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 2701 Cambridge Court, Suite 300, Auburn Hills, Michigan
    
    48326(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
  
  
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 4.01. Changes in Registrants Certifying Accountant.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXLetter of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    Table of Contents  
 Item 4.01. Changes in Registrants Certifying Accountant.
 (a) Former independent registered public accounting firm
      (b) New independent registered public accounting firm




---



##### Table of Contents



Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description16
    
    Letter of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP dated June 21, 2006, regarding change in certifying
accountant of Champion Enterprises, Inc.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC.By:
    /s/ John J. Collins, Jr.John J. Collins, Jr., Senior Vice President,General Counsel and Secretary 21




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Description16
    
    Letter of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP dated June 21, 2006, regarding change in certifying
accountant of Champion Enterprises, Inc.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_publications(25)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(13)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(12)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video(7)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(5)
              - alaska(9)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(36)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(60)
              - colorado(4)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(2)
              - connecticut(4)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - florida(15)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(14)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(11)
              - (-)maine(7)
              - maryland(15)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(16)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(5)
              - ohio(2)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(10)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(17)
              - u.s. virgin islands(3)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(14)
              - west virginia(3)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

B-roll        December 20, 2023        Kennebec River

Featured Films and Shorts        April 12, 2024        USGS New England Water Science Center

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

How to's and trainings        February 29, 2016        Maine Cooperative Snow Survey

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2021        Image of the Week - Tides in the Bay of Fundy

Featured Films and Shorts        March 14, 2023        Imagery as Streamflow Data: Introducing the USGS Flow Photo Explorer

How to's and trainings        September 30, 2016        Submitting Data Acquisition Request in USGS Collection Management Tool
H. Res. 53 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 5, 2013. 

Resolved, That the following Members be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the House 

of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Garrett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cole, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Lankford, 

Mr. Ribble, Mr. Flores, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Woodall, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Renacci, Mr. Rigell, Mrs. Hartzler, 

Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Messer, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, and 

Mr. Williams. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-61152 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Demetrius S. Rankin, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-41-1 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Demetrius S. Rankin, federal prisoner # 03266-043, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act. Rankin 

argued in his motion that he was entitled to compassionate release due to the 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 23, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-61152 Document: 00516026705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
No. 20-61152 

2 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances COVID-19 poses in a prison 

setting, particularly in light of his history of multiple serious medical 

conditions, including chronic bronchitis, hypertension, morbid obesity, 

asthma, allergies, and anxiety. 

We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion 

for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court expressed 

that it lacked authority to order home confinement and concluded that 

Rankin was not entitled to an early release because his medical conditions did 

not create an extraordinary or compelling circumstance and, additionally, the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in his favor. 

Rankin primarily argues that the district court erred in its order 

denying relief by failing to articulate the burden of proof required to establish 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release. 

Rankin’s counseled brief fails to raise any meaningful challenge to the district 

court’s determination that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors disfavored release, as required for 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief, or that it lacked authority to order home 

confinement. Thus, Rankin has abandoned these issues. See United States v. 

Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798 

F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Rankin has failed to show an abuse of discretion 

by the district court, and the order denying his motion for release is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-61152 Document: 00516026705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, E.I. DU 

PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NL 

INDUSTRIES, INC., PPG INDUSTRIES, 

INC., AND THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 

COMPANY,

Respondents

v.

THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH, 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 307 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Extreme Events

Filters

              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(6)
              - alaska(19)
              - american samoa(2)
              - arizona(17)
              - (-)arkansas(1)
              - california(65)
              - colorado(12)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(8)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(8)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(8)
              - guam(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(4)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(3)
              - louisiana(17)
              - maine(9)
              - maryland(13)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(3)
              - mississippi(7)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(4)
              - new hampshire(7)
              - new jersey(10)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(11)
              - north carolina(7)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(15)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(12)
              - rhode island(8)
              - south carolina(4)
              - south dakota(13)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(9)
              - u.s. virgin islands(5)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(17)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        August 7, 2017        Developing Effective Drought Monitoring Tools for Farmers and Ranchers
Ernest BROOKS, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3920

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 04, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE 1998 RULES FOR :MAY 2 5 1999 ADMISSION TO THE BAR ; ORDER OF MONTANA 1 CLERKgL&$f II. ._i, **%-ATE OF MCI**  **: ii.iA**  This Court has determined that it is necessary to amend Section IV of the 1998 Rules for Admission to the State Bar of Montana. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that effective l%p3 > 1999, Section IV of the 1998 Rules for Admission to the State Bar of Montana is amended as follows: C. Except upon a showing of good cause, no attorney or firm may appearpro hat vice in more than two pending actions or proceedings in any state court or administrative aaencv (aeencvl in Montana.

D. t... The completed application, along with a fee of $100 must be filed with the State Bar of Montana. The application will then be reviewed by the State Bar of Montana which shall certify the number of prior appearance the applicant has been granted under Section IV-C and whether or not the applicant has been provided the requisite information. Upon certification, the State Bar shall forward the application and to the appropriate court or agencv. The court or auencv shall enter an order granting or refusing the application and, if the applicant is refused, the court or agency shall state its reasons. The State Bar of Montana shall maintain a record of all pro hat vice applications as a public record. Attorneys appearingpro hat vice shall notify the State Bar of Montana upon conclusion of the matter in which the attorney appeared.

E.

. . . The court or agency in which an attorney is appearing pro hat vice or the Montana Supreme Court may, for violations of Montana law, the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana, or orders of the court, withdraw its permission for an attorney to appearpro hat vice.

F. Montana attorneys of record shall sign all pleadings, motions and briefs and participate actively in all phases of the case, including, but not limited to, attendance at depositions and court or agency proceedings, preparation of discovery responses and briefs and all other activities necessary to be preparedto go forward with the case at all times. A district court or agency, upon

motion by local counsel, may waive this rule based upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Upon waiver of the rule by the district court a agency, all papers subsequently filed shall be signed by counsel actively involved in the case. Such a waiver is not to be routinely granted. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to the State Bar of Montana to the Administrator of the Board of Bar Examiners; to all members of the commission on Admission Rules Revision; to West Group; to the Code Commissioner and Director of Legal Services at the Montana Legislative Services Division; to each of the Clerks of the District Courts of Montana; and to Sally Hilander at The Montana Lawyer magazine with the request that this Order be published in the next possible issue.

,r;E; DATED this&daFof May, 1999.

2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas
Chaffin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer

March 10, 2006